Rogerian argument

Carl R. Rogers

Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

Logical fallacy Syllogism Argument

General logic

False dilemma Heuristic Point refuted a thousand times Not all Logically Fallacious Apelación a la piedad

Bad logic

Equivocation Argument from authority Not even wrong Argumentum ad nauseam Escape to the future Argument from desire v - t - e

A Rogerian argument is a type of argument in which one tries to seek a middle ground between two opposing arguments rather than trying to dictate a "winner" unlike in a traditional Aristotelian argument. This kind of argument is largely inspired by the 20^th-century American psychologist Carl Rogers. One may "win" in a Rogerian argument by successfully convincing the opponent to consider alternative arguments.

Alternative name

• Rogerian rhetoric

Typical usage in argument

1. Person 1: Raises argument $A_{1}$
2. Person 2: Raises argument $A_{2}$
3. Person 1 or 2: Creates argument $A_{3}$, a 'compromise' of $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ that typically contains premises from both $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$
4. Person 1 or 2: Argues argument $A_{3}$ typically using the combined premises of $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$

As rhetoric versus an argument

Suppose that the Rogerian argument technique is being used on two arguments, $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$, that are disjoint. That is, $A_{1}\cap A_{2}=\emptyset$. Then, it is impossible to have a formal argument using Rogerian argument techniques; there are no common premises. At this point, the purpose of deploying Rogerian rhetoric is more analogous to a negotiation medium than an argument technique whose purpose is to simply understand the opposing argument rather than trying to change it.

See also

• Hegelian synthesis

References

This logic-related article is a stub.
You can help RationalWiki by expanding it.